File spoon-archives/postcolonial.archive/postcolonial_1996/96-08-26.043, message 81


Date: Sat, 20 Jul 96 16:45 EDT
From: Rodrigo_J_LAZO-AT-umail.umd.edu (rl71)
Subject: Re: Re: censorship, intolerance -- raka shome 



        RE: the messages below.
        You might want to consider a distinction between an illocutionary
speech act, which accomplishes an act in the saying -- e.g. when someone's
boss says, "You are fired!" -- and a perlocutionary speech act, which brings
about an EFFECT in the saying. As such, raising the issue of banning someone
>from the list did not ban him, but it functioned as a perlocutionary speech
act in that it caused an effect, angry responses and further discussion on
"the issue of banning Julian." And maybe it affected list members in other
ways.
        (I did not see the original messages so my comment is more about
speech acts and threats rather than about the person and what was said to
cause the response from the list manager.)

        Rodrigo Lazo
  
>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 TABRON-AT-BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU wrote:
>
>> The issue of banning Julian has been bandied about -- it has NOT been done.
>> 
>> I disagree with the person who said that mentioning it and doing it is
>> the same thing. Except for speech acts, I can't think of a single instance
>> in which mentioning something and actually doing it are the same.
>
>I'm glad someone noticed
>
>sometimes - even online, all the world is *not* just text;-)
>> 
>> Judith
>> who WISHES that by referring to a salary increase she could actually cause
>> one...
>> 
>> >
>
>     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005